|
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
<HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
> The 'people' used to own the train system and underground in the United > Kingdom > as well. The transportation was good, and affordable. Adn heavily subsidized by taxes. Most of which NOW go to... > Ditto the health care system. > Want to run that by, again? Read much? > (That is probably why the founding fathers preserved the US > Postal Service as a government function, rather than opening it up to > entrepreneurs as a business.) Uh... not exactly. Study up. Think 'Rural electrical coop' for a hint. Then think how much of your junk mail arrives by FedEx or UPS ... there's a little hint there as to why first class postal rates keep rising. -- Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>>The 'people' used to own the train system and underground in the United >>Kingdom >>as well. The transportation was good, and affordable. Ditto the health >>care system. >> >>After privatization, it all went to hell in a handbasket. >> > Eh? pre what, 85 I think it was, trains were nasty, smelly anf filthy. > statoins were dark and often dank, trains were slow and often not on > time, and my local mainline station at the time had no working > electronic scheduals (the dot matrix board was always broke, and all > the monitor screens had severe phosphor burn. > Never let facts get in the way of a good opinion! ;) -- Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>>The 'people' used to own the train system and underground in the United >>Kingdom >>as well. The transportation was good, and affordable. Ditto the health >>care system. >> >>After privatization, it all went to hell in a handbasket. >> > Eh? pre what, 85 I think it was, trains were nasty, smelly anf filthy. > statoins were dark and often dank, trains were slow and often not on > time, and my local mainline station at the time had no working > electronic scheduals (the dot matrix board was always broke, and all > the monitor screens had severe phosphor burn. > Never let facts get in the way of a good opinion! ;) -- Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>>The 'people' used to own the train system and underground in the United >>Kingdom >>as well. The transportation was good, and affordable. Ditto the health >>care system. >> >>After privatization, it all went to hell in a handbasket. >> > Eh? pre what, 85 I think it was, trains were nasty, smelly anf filthy. > statoins were dark and often dank, trains were slow and often not on > time, and my local mainline station at the time had no working > electronic scheduals (the dot matrix board was always broke, and all > the monitor screens had severe phosphor burn. > Never let facts get in the way of a good opinion! ;) -- Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
Think about it. If one can not pump any more gasoline through the
distribution system because the demand is cut in half, one does not have any tanks left to store the gasoline, that comes out of a barrel of oil before one get to the really profitable carbon products, what do you think they will have to do with the gasoline? ;) mike hunt "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4yC1g.9166$i41.2725@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net... > > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message > news:pSadnXMgH7CpW9vZUSdV9g@ptd.net... >> That is a good idea, the only problem is it will not solve the problem. >> It will reduce the INCREASE in the amount of oil we import but not our >> need for the fast amounts of crude we use to fuel the various economies >> of >> the world. Gasoline is only a small part of why we need to import crude. >> If every >> vehicle in the US miraculously got twice as many miles per gallon some >> day >> we would still need crude for it carbon stocks and the excess gasoline >> would simply be burned off at the refineries, as it was before it became >> a >> motor fuel. > > Please give us evidence that excess gasoline would just be burned off. > > I mean, before it became a motor fuel? That was when? In 1896? > > Jeff > |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
Think about it. If one can not pump any more gasoline through the
distribution system because the demand is cut in half, one does not have any tanks left to store the gasoline, that comes out of a barrel of oil before one get to the really profitable carbon products, what do you think they will have to do with the gasoline? ;) mike hunt "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4yC1g.9166$i41.2725@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net... > > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message > news:pSadnXMgH7CpW9vZUSdV9g@ptd.net... >> That is a good idea, the only problem is it will not solve the problem. >> It will reduce the INCREASE in the amount of oil we import but not our >> need for the fast amounts of crude we use to fuel the various economies >> of >> the world. Gasoline is only a small part of why we need to import crude. >> If every >> vehicle in the US miraculously got twice as many miles per gallon some >> day >> we would still need crude for it carbon stocks and the excess gasoline >> would simply be burned off at the refineries, as it was before it became >> a >> motor fuel. > > Please give us evidence that excess gasoline would just be burned off. > > I mean, before it became a motor fuel? That was when? In 1896? > > Jeff > |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
Think about it. If one can not pump any more gasoline through the
distribution system because the demand is cut in half, one does not have any tanks left to store the gasoline, that comes out of a barrel of oil before one get to the really profitable carbon products, what do you think they will have to do with the gasoline? ;) mike hunt "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4yC1g.9166$i41.2725@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net... > > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message > news:pSadnXMgH7CpW9vZUSdV9g@ptd.net... >> That is a good idea, the only problem is it will not solve the problem. >> It will reduce the INCREASE in the amount of oil we import but not our >> need for the fast amounts of crude we use to fuel the various economies >> of >> the world. Gasoline is only a small part of why we need to import crude. >> If every >> vehicle in the US miraculously got twice as many miles per gallon some >> day >> we would still need crude for it carbon stocks and the excess gasoline >> would simply be burned off at the refineries, as it was before it became >> a >> motor fuel. > > Please give us evidence that excess gasoline would just be burned off. > > I mean, before it became a motor fuel? That was when? In 1896? > > Jeff > |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
Really? The company that is being built in Pa to covert coal to oil plant
is a private capitol company, that was given $100,000,000 in federal seed money, by the President, through the DOD. mike hunt "dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message news:4446def1$0$14391$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.c om... > No private industry will touch this and energy > turns out to be a strategic asset. Free markets are great for allocating > resources but do not do strategic planning. Building something as a > nation > can make a lot of sense. > > I noticed a guy at a store the other day. He was wearing a t-shirt > commemorating the Rutan project's ascent into space. The usual > "Capitalism > 1, NASA 0" sort of message. > > Except - that's not the score. Getting 100km off the ground is a fairly > notable achievement. One that NASA managed in 1962 or so. I remember > watching it on a black-and-white TV. > > And 100km off the ground and then straight back down is not near as > impressive - or dangerous - as re-entry from a 160km orbit at 30K km/sec. > > Nor has Rutan made it to the Moon. A small matter of getting up out of > TWO > gravity wells and completely escaping both. > > The score is more like "Capitalism 0.1, NASA 32." Rutan took a baby-step > towards useful space travel. > > Oh, and the capacity of SpaceShip 1 or whatever it's called is a pilot and > three passengers. No luggage. No supplies for a few days in space. The > Shuttle can lift tons into orbit and stay there for days. An EDO Shuttle > can stay up for a couple of weeks. > > So, while I think a coal-to-liquid fuel conversion plant is a bad idea, I > don't think a project owned by the people for the people will necessarily > be > a bad idea. > >> -- >> "[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system." >> >> -- Vice President Al Gore > > Hilarious. Say, did you watch "Great Presidential Speeches" on Letterman > last week? > > > *** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com *** |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
Really? The company that is being built in Pa to covert coal to oil plant
is a private capitol company, that was given $100,000,000 in federal seed money, by the President, through the DOD. mike hunt "dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message news:4446def1$0$14391$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.c om... > No private industry will touch this and energy > turns out to be a strategic asset. Free markets are great for allocating > resources but do not do strategic planning. Building something as a > nation > can make a lot of sense. > > I noticed a guy at a store the other day. He was wearing a t-shirt > commemorating the Rutan project's ascent into space. The usual > "Capitalism > 1, NASA 0" sort of message. > > Except - that's not the score. Getting 100km off the ground is a fairly > notable achievement. One that NASA managed in 1962 or so. I remember > watching it on a black-and-white TV. > > And 100km off the ground and then straight back down is not near as > impressive - or dangerous - as re-entry from a 160km orbit at 30K km/sec. > > Nor has Rutan made it to the Moon. A small matter of getting up out of > TWO > gravity wells and completely escaping both. > > The score is more like "Capitalism 0.1, NASA 32." Rutan took a baby-step > towards useful space travel. > > Oh, and the capacity of SpaceShip 1 or whatever it's called is a pilot and > three passengers. No luggage. No supplies for a few days in space. The > Shuttle can lift tons into orbit and stay there for days. An EDO Shuttle > can stay up for a couple of weeks. > > So, while I think a coal-to-liquid fuel conversion plant is a bad idea, I > don't think a project owned by the people for the people will necessarily > be > a bad idea. > >> -- >> "[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system." >> >> -- Vice President Al Gore > > Hilarious. Say, did you watch "Great Presidential Speeches" on Letterman > last week? > > > *** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com *** |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
Really? The company that is being built in Pa to covert coal to oil plant
is a private capitol company, that was given $100,000,000 in federal seed money, by the President, through the DOD. mike hunt "dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message news:4446def1$0$14391$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.c om... > No private industry will touch this and energy > turns out to be a strategic asset. Free markets are great for allocating > resources but do not do strategic planning. Building something as a > nation > can make a lot of sense. > > I noticed a guy at a store the other day. He was wearing a t-shirt > commemorating the Rutan project's ascent into space. The usual > "Capitalism > 1, NASA 0" sort of message. > > Except - that's not the score. Getting 100km off the ground is a fairly > notable achievement. One that NASA managed in 1962 or so. I remember > watching it on a black-and-white TV. > > And 100km off the ground and then straight back down is not near as > impressive - or dangerous - as re-entry from a 160km orbit at 30K km/sec. > > Nor has Rutan made it to the Moon. A small matter of getting up out of > TWO > gravity wells and completely escaping both. > > The score is more like "Capitalism 0.1, NASA 32." Rutan took a baby-step > towards useful space travel. > > Oh, and the capacity of SpaceShip 1 or whatever it's called is a pilot and > three passengers. No luggage. No supplies for a few days in space. The > Shuttle can lift tons into orbit and stay there for days. An EDO Shuttle > can stay up for a couple of weeks. > > So, while I think a coal-to-liquid fuel conversion plant is a bad idea, I > don't think a project owned by the people for the people will necessarily > be > a bad idea. > >> -- >> "[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system." >> >> -- Vice President Al Gore > > Hilarious. Say, did you watch "Great Presidential Speeches" on Letterman > last week? > > > *** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com *** |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:qxSdnSZaXJJwONrZUSdV9g@ptd.net... > Think about it. If one can not pump any more gasoline through the > distribution system because the demand is cut in half, one does not have > any tanks left to store the gasoline, that comes out of a barrel of oil > before one get to the really profitable carbon products, what do you think > they will have to do with the gasoline? ;) I didn't ask you to think about it. I asked for evidence. Jeff > mike hunt > > > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4yC1g.9166$i41.2725@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net... >> >> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message >> news:pSadnXMgH7CpW9vZUSdV9g@ptd.net... >>> That is a good idea, the only problem is it will not solve the problem. >>> It will reduce the INCREASE in the amount of oil we import but not our >>> need for the fast amounts of crude we use to fuel the various economies >>> of >>> the world. Gasoline is only a small part of why we need to import crude. > >>> If every >>> vehicle in the US miraculously got twice as many miles per gallon some >>> day >>> we would still need crude for it carbon stocks and the excess gasoline >>> would simply be burned off at the refineries, as it was before it became >>> a >>> motor fuel. >> >> Please give us evidence that excess gasoline would just be burned off. >> >> I mean, before it became a motor fuel? That was when? In 1896? >> >> Jeff >> > > |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:qxSdnSZaXJJwONrZUSdV9g@ptd.net... > Think about it. If one can not pump any more gasoline through the > distribution system because the demand is cut in half, one does not have > any tanks left to store the gasoline, that comes out of a barrel of oil > before one get to the really profitable carbon products, what do you think > they will have to do with the gasoline? ;) I didn't ask you to think about it. I asked for evidence. Jeff > mike hunt > > > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4yC1g.9166$i41.2725@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net... >> >> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message >> news:pSadnXMgH7CpW9vZUSdV9g@ptd.net... >>> That is a good idea, the only problem is it will not solve the problem. >>> It will reduce the INCREASE in the amount of oil we import but not our >>> need for the fast amounts of crude we use to fuel the various economies >>> of >>> the world. Gasoline is only a small part of why we need to import crude. > >>> If every >>> vehicle in the US miraculously got twice as many miles per gallon some >>> day >>> we would still need crude for it carbon stocks and the excess gasoline >>> would simply be burned off at the refineries, as it was before it became >>> a >>> motor fuel. >> >> Please give us evidence that excess gasoline would just be burned off. >> >> I mean, before it became a motor fuel? That was when? In 1896? >> >> Jeff >> > > |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:qxSdnSZaXJJwONrZUSdV9g@ptd.net... > Think about it. If one can not pump any more gasoline through the > distribution system because the demand is cut in half, one does not have > any tanks left to store the gasoline, that comes out of a barrel of oil > before one get to the really profitable carbon products, what do you think > they will have to do with the gasoline? ;) I didn't ask you to think about it. I asked for evidence. Jeff > mike hunt > > > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4yC1g.9166$i41.2725@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net... >> >> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message >> news:pSadnXMgH7CpW9vZUSdV9g@ptd.net... >>> That is a good idea, the only problem is it will not solve the problem. >>> It will reduce the INCREASE in the amount of oil we import but not our >>> need for the fast amounts of crude we use to fuel the various economies >>> of >>> the world. Gasoline is only a small part of why we need to import crude. > >>> If every >>> vehicle in the US miraculously got twice as many miles per gallon some >>> day >>> we would still need crude for it carbon stocks and the excess gasoline >>> would simply be burned off at the refineries, as it was before it became >>> a >>> motor fuel. >> >> Please give us evidence that excess gasoline would just be burned off. >> >> I mean, before it became a motor fuel? That was when? In 1896? >> >> Jeff >> > > |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"NeedforSwede2" <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1eb1a9d476b3b98989d01@news.individual.net ... > In article <VzC1g.9168$i41.9016@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink. net>, > kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com says... >> No, I live about 30 km from school. I take a diesel-electric train to the >> train terminal, then two electric subway trains. Most of my students >> either >> walk, take a diesel bus or the subway there. >> > And that electric is probably oil generated, and diesel is just another > fuel oil produced from crude. Yet, I use considerably less energy and produce less pollution than if I drove into school. Jeff > -- > Carl Robson > Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz > Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com |
Re: We Could Build a Coal-to-Gasoline Conversion Plant
"NeedforSwede2" <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1eb1a9d476b3b98989d01@news.individual.net ... > In article <VzC1g.9168$i41.9016@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink. net>, > kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com says... >> No, I live about 30 km from school. I take a diesel-electric train to the >> train terminal, then two electric subway trains. Most of my students >> either >> walk, take a diesel bus or the subway there. >> > And that electric is probably oil generated, and diesel is just another > fuel oil produced from crude. Yet, I use considerably less energy and produce less pollution than if I drove into school. Jeff > -- > Carl Robson > Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz > Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:05 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands